Believing that something is wrong is morally objective, by definition.
What are you talking about? Do you believe in opinions at all? "I believe that football is boring."
That's a strange question. Believe in opinions? Why should anyone care what your opinions are? There are almost 7 billion other people on the planet, your opinions do not matter. The only opinions that matter to other people are informed ones with reasons to back them up.
In other words, if it's just your opinion he shouldn't go to jail, why should anyone else care? I see no more reason why I should care about that opinion or your opinion on football or your opinion on pink unicorns for that matter.
I still don't know what you mean. There's nothing stopping a moral relativist from commenting on anything.
The point wasn't that a moral relativist couldn't comment on anything, it's that a moral relativist's comments on questions of right or wrong are worth nothing by his own admission.
A moral relativist arguing that other should follow his moral code is inconsistent with moral relativism because there can be no actual arguments for or against the code, only pleading, threats, or bribes.
No, it doesn't. "I believe" is different from "I know.
Believing that something is wrong is morally objective, by definition.
You object to the fact that this man was imprisoned because you think it was wrong. "Right and wrong" is essentially the same concept as "good and evil", just with different labels. If good and evil are subjective so are right and wrong. If right and wrong are subjective, then you have no basis upon which to object to his imprisonment because it is only wrong in your own mind.
That's one of the major flaws in subjectivist morality. If morality is subjective then there can be no agreement on right or wrong and the subjectivist should refrain from commenting on morality at all since by his own admission his statements are nothing but baseless opinion. Of course, the objective moralist is under no such constraint because his philosophy ascribes actual meaning to statements of right and wrong.
Essentially, It becomes very difficult to critique laws without some objective measure of right and wrong. For example, in this case the perpetrator has plead guilty, thus admitting that he broke the law. If he has admitted that he broke the law, then he must suffer the consequences. For a subjective moralist there is no basis for objecting because the consequences have only subjective moral value.
Essentially, I'm saying you're being inconsistent here. You clearly believe that imprisoning people is wrong unless they have done something that deserves such punishment (such as assault or murder). That belief contains at least two objective moral statements: 1 - that imprisoning people is wrong and 2 - that assault and murder are even more wrong.
Many people don't think evil is subjective at all.
And? Some people do. I said "likely."
If you want to consider evil as subjective, then you must acknowledge that you have no grounds for defending this man. The evil done by imprisoning him must be subjective and therefore exist only in your opinion.
Actually, I consider those who would attack or kill another person because they've lost control of their emotions to be "insane" or "unstable."
Then we are all "insane" or "unstable". We are all capable of visiting violence on others in a blind rage. It's an essential part of the human condition and part of the reason why temporary insanity is actually a permissible defense in most modern legal systems.
Are you saying that it is not possible for someone to desensitize themselves and/or realize that words are just words?
But words are not "just" words. They have the power to heal and to harm. Words have raised up empires and toppled them. Words have enabled tyrants to stride the world and thrown them back down. As they say "the pen is mightier than the sword", and they say it because swords "merely" end lives, whereas pens write words. The essence is that words are more powerful than death. So, words are "just" words in the same way that the Sun is "just" a giant nuclear furnace. They are "just" words only if you choose to be ignorant of their fundamental nature.
Grieving parents, in particular, are at one of the most vulnerable moment in their lives. It would require extraordinary self-control to deal rationally with someone who chose that particular time to attack them and the child they are grieving. It's all well and good to say they should control their reactions, but it's probably not going to happen. It is irrational to expect it to happen, and it begs the question why the attacker shouldn't control his actions or be forced into controlling his actions if he is unable to do so. Why should the world accommodate the reprehensible and reckless behavior of an evil man and instead put the burden of enduring his evil on good people who have done nothing to deserve his assaults?
Like me? Where did I indicate that I am such a person?
Frankly, it's all over your posts. You have little empathy for others, you seem to consider people who are grieving to be "insane" and "unstable". You seem to think harassment and defamation are perfectly reasonable behavior. You under react to antisocial behavior but over react to physical violence.
Would you tell the victim of a beating that he should grow thicker skin?
If there was a magical way to ward of physical pain and damage, yes.
Know what? Telling grieving families to "not be so sensitive" doesn't magically work either.
In person that could get you killed, rightly or wrongly.
I'm glad that we have the internet, then. That way you don't have to deal with people that I deem as "insane" and "unstable."
"Unstable"? Definitely. Of course, the guy in question sought out the parents of dead children because he knew they would usually be at least temporarily unstable. He sought them out for the express purpose to seeing how much harm he could inflict with his words. And he did it more than once, to people he had no reason to interact with other than to, deliberately and with foreknowledge, cause distress.
I find it interesting how some people, like you seem to dread physical violence and yet take so much delight in emotionally torturing your victims as if emotional pain and violence aren't intrinsically linked together. Would you tell the victim of a beating that he should grow thicker skin?
I think a serial offender who seeks out funerals and memorials to shout obscenities about the departed at the grieving families deserves to be dealt with.
It's not a case of (allegedly) hurting people's feelings, it's seeking out people who are emotionally vulnerable so you can get your jollies by re-victimizing them. It actually is evil. A petty, miserable sort of evil, but evil none the less.
When you get down to it, removing paint from stone isn't very hard to do either. It doesn't seem to me that you "care more about property in the real world" but rather that you only care about property in the real world. That's okay, but you should be honest about it. It may be harder to clean a gravestone, but that doesn't mean there isn't effort involved in deleting someone's offensive messages and banning them posting further. Additionally the punishment for defacing a gravestone is likely to go beyond merely the cost of cleaning it up.
What qualifies as defacing a gravestone? Writing a comment that the gravestone owner doesn't like?
I don't know that I agree with the crime that the guy plead guilty to, but it may be that it allowed him to avoid a harsher punishment or harassment or stalking laws, because it takes someone pretty screwed up to taunt grieving parents. In person that could get you killed, rightly or wrongly.
Many people don't know that "polite" was how you acted in the city ("polis"). You acted polite because offending people was likely to end up with somebody's (probably your) corpse rotting in the gutter.
He vandalized her memorial page. I don't see why vandalizing her memorial page should have no consequences, yet vandalizing a grave stone should have consequences. There seems to be an inconsistency here.
If she claims it was rape, then does she not believe her own claim? How can she not believe it was rape and yet honestly claim it was?
Because of a typo, that may have been unclear. She does not claim that she was raped or that Ms. Magee is a rapist in the blog post. In person, she definitely accused Ms. Magee.
Because it wasn't "for the simple reason". If that was "the simple reason", then EVERYONE who was boarding a plane would get the same treatment. There was another reason, obviously. Whether that reason was sufficient to justify the search doesn't change the fact there was a reason.
According the blog post, everyone else who boarded the plane was given similar treatment and no reason was ever offered to Ms. Aklon for why she or any of the other passengers was violated in such a manner. Frankly, I find it hard to imagine any reason that could justify this behavior on the TSA's part. There was definitely a reason, but I suspect the reason is specious and if the real reason were disclosed someone would end up in prison or lynched.
Again, you try to drag the conversation back to a topic no one but you wants to talk about. Do you not understand how tiresome and pedantic your behavior is?
I tried discussing why most people are all to willing to believe the worst of the TSA and all you can do is stupidly repeat that we don't know the details of this incident. It seems to me that practically everyone except you knows and understand this. But you for some reason are stuck on the notion that this is a new and novel insight rather than so blindingly obvious it doesn't even bear mentioning in regular conversation.
You know, you could have just said that from the start, and saved me the bother of trying to reason with you.
You haven't tried to reason with me. You keep trying to change to subject and focus on the details of the allegation that we do not know. You're offering very tenuous arguments that maybe it wasn't exactly technically rape. Which might be understandable if anyone were actually arguing that it was. Frankly, I find your statements to be boorish and simpleminded. You don't seem to understand that people aren't really talking about this incident, this alleged incident has just brought the issue of TSA abuses up yet again.
You seem unable or unwilling to follow any line of conversation that goes beyond writing about how much nobody knows about the incident you freely admit you know nothing about. Why are you even bothering to post?
You may be right, but why should we care? There is documented video of the TSA performing pat downs on toddlers and wheelchair bound grandmothers. Presumption of innocence is for the courts, not the public. You know the saying "Fool me once shame on you, Fool me twice shame on me"? The TSA has earned a reputation for thuggery and violations of fundamental rights and as such has forfeited the right to the benefit of the doubt in the minds of the public.
Additionally, as a syndicated columnist who has a reputation to protect, Ms. Aklon is probably also awarded slightly more credibility than a random blogger would get. Given that she does have a reputation to protect, it seems unlikely that she would pick a fight with the TSA over an incident she invented. Not inconceivable, but given the past history of the TSA and the nature of the complainant, the allegations seem plausible.
Frankly, I think it's the agency that's getting the worst of it, the woman herself is almost incidental to the story. She is named, as far as I can tell, to shame her for her participation in tyranny.
Ms. Alkon's attorney advised her it would be a non-starter - but they don't explain why they advised her of that.
You should actually read the blog post. The lawyer's explanation is right there:
I think it is extremely unlikely that these pat-downs would be deemed a sexual assault, or any assault for that matter. In the first place, the person doing the pat-down would be acting according to regulations and instructions, hence on good faith... because of the purported justification ("National security", airline safety).
The only issue, it seems to me, is whether there is a decent security reason to justify such pat-downs, or whether it is an unconstitutional search and seizure, or invasion of privacy/intrusion, because not justified for safety reasons. As with most constitutional rights, including this Fourth Amendment search-and-seizure, or Fifth Amendment due process, a court would weigh the state's justification (i.e., security gains) versus the citizen's losses (privacy, dignity)....To win a battle for liberty like this, people must not get accustomed to these indignities, but must complain about them every single time... and in every forum possible.
Actually, Ms. Aklon has not claimed anything of the sort, which you would know if you had read the blog post in question (it is linked from the article). She specifically says that she screamed "You raped me" at the woman and then talks about the legal advice that said she would be unlikely to prevail in a sexual assault case and would have a better case based on fourth or fifth amendment grounds.
She hasn't filed rape charges because she doesn't believe she was raped, and does claim that it was rape. She hasn't filed sexual assault charges because she has been advised that the case would be unlikely to win. As for a lawsuit on fourth and/or fifth amendment grounds? You'd have to ask her that, but I would hazard a guess that it's expensive as a syndicated columnist her strength is writing about her experiences rather than winning lawsuits.
Again, she never called Ms. Magee a rapist, she is accused of having committed a "government sanctioned sexual assault".
Finally, the blog post isn't even really about Ms. Magee, her name is included as an after thought. It's about unreasonable it is to require that a government employee actually violate your body for the simple reason that you are boarding a plane. According to Ms. Aklon, as far as she could tell everyone boarding the same flight as her received similar treatment. That's a lot civil liberty violations. The post is mostly about how Americans should refuse to accept this barbarous treatment.
Honestly, is "the hands of the state have no business in the vaginas of the people" really such a foreign concept to you people now?
Honestly, are you really this blind? The TSA agent gets a less than kind treatment for for physically assaulting a woman and then having the temerity to sue her for complaining about the assault. The central issue appears to be that the agent doesn't want to be identified by name. It doesn't sound like there is a disagreement over what occurred but merely a disagreement over whether the victim has the right to name the woman who assaulted her.
And yes, it's still assault to forcibly shove your fingers into someone else's body, even if you're an agent of the government.
Russians starved under Stalin because of Lysenkoism. Essentially Russians were taken in by pseudo-science masquerading as science, and paid the price when they tried to grow crops using pseudo-scientific theories.
There are many Republican presidential candidates who worry me for the same reason. How much damage will be done by a President who thinks praying will convince God to intercede and fix the Nation's problems. How much damage could be done by a President who pretends his state is experience a huge economic miracle, when in many ways it's last. The Republicans seem to have rejected reality, and are now content to live in a land of make believe. As amply demonstrated by Stalin, that's not a good quality in your leaders, elected or otherwise.
I'm not sure how much I trust evolutionary sociology and psychology, but as I understand the fields, we (humans and our ancestors) have prospered through reciprocal altruism, not unrestricted self-interest.
This makes sense since unrestricted altruism would be vulnerable to the self-interested and unrestricted self-interest would destroy any society we tried to form*.
* Because it's almost aways better to betray the altruistic in the short-term, and we are not usually very good long term planners.
The benefit of travel like this is confronting "Otherness." The Other forces you to examine your assumptions, to question your beliefs, to stretch your perspective, to widen your horizons, and to entertain alternatives -- all skills worth a million dollars in today's world. You won't get very much of this at college. But go to India, or the Congo, or Albania, and its Otherness will teach you.
If only that were true in every case. You have to be willing to learn from "Otherness" in order to benefit from it. I think there are generally three different reactions to otherness, whole-hearted embracing, tentative acceptance, and outright rejection. Both the first and the last option can be worse than no exposure. For instance, the embracers may not not fully consider the consequences of embracing what they discover. The rejectors on the other hand may come to hate the very people they were supposed to learn from. They may return convinced that they are inherently superior to the "others", whether that be intellectually, morally, or otherwise. Fortunately, most people tend to take the middle road.
My point is that while it's quite probably a good idea, it is also probably not a panacea. I suspect many people would have their prejudices reinforced and amplified by the experience.
While there is the possibility that you had the misfortune to have a lot (20-30?) bad teachers during your teenage years, there is also a significantly higher probability that you were (and potentially still are) the problem.
As a result, we have lifelong infants lecturing their parents on environmentalism and gay sensitivity.
This line confirms, at least to me, that your subjective opinions are not trustworthy.
Slashdot Mirror
I do not care about your opinion (nor do I agree with it).
That much is obvious.
I didn't say that you should.
Then I shall not trouble you any more with reason or logic. Clearly you have no need for either.
Believing that something is wrong is morally objective, by definition.
What are you talking about? Do you believe in opinions at all? "I believe that football is boring."
That's a strange question. Believe in opinions? Why should anyone care what your opinions are? There are almost 7 billion other people on the planet, your opinions do not matter. The only opinions that matter to other people are informed ones with reasons to back them up.
In other words, if it's just your opinion he shouldn't go to jail, why should anyone else care? I see no more reason why I should care about that opinion or your opinion on football or your opinion on pink unicorns for that matter.
I still don't know what you mean. There's nothing stopping a moral relativist from commenting on anything.
The point wasn't that a moral relativist couldn't comment on anything, it's that a moral relativist's comments on questions of right or wrong are worth nothing by his own admission.
A moral relativist arguing that other should follow his moral code is inconsistent with moral relativism because there can be no actual arguments for or against the code, only pleading, threats, or bribes.
No, it doesn't. "I believe" is different from "I know.
Believing that something is wrong is morally objective, by definition.
Let's see if i can explain this:
You object to the fact that this man was imprisoned because you think it was wrong. "Right and wrong" is essentially the same concept as "good and evil", just with different labels. If good and evil are subjective so are right and wrong. If right and wrong are subjective, then you have no basis upon which to object to his imprisonment because it is only wrong in your own mind.
That's one of the major flaws in subjectivist morality. If morality is subjective then there can be no agreement on right or wrong and the subjectivist should refrain from commenting on morality at all since by his own admission his statements are nothing but baseless opinion. Of course, the objective moralist is under no such constraint because his philosophy ascribes actual meaning to statements of right and wrong.
Essentially, It becomes very difficult to critique laws without some objective measure of right and wrong. For example, in this case the perpetrator has plead guilty, thus admitting that he broke the law. If he has admitted that he broke the law, then he must suffer the consequences. For a subjective moralist there is no basis for objecting because the consequences have only subjective moral value.
Essentially, I'm saying you're being inconsistent here. You clearly believe that imprisoning people is wrong unless they have done something that deserves such punishment (such as assault or murder). That belief contains at least two objective moral statements: 1 - that imprisoning people is wrong and 2 - that assault and murder are even more wrong.
Many people don't think evil is subjective at all.
And? Some people do. I said "likely."
If you want to consider evil as subjective, then you must acknowledge that you have no grounds for defending this man. The evil done by imprisoning him must be subjective and therefore exist only in your opinion.
"Evil" is likely subjective (as well as "good").
Many people don't think evil is subjective at all.
I don't think I'm going to be able to convince you.
It appears unlikely, I can find no grounds other than an absolutist's overly romantic view of freedom to justify not intervening.
Actually, I consider those who would attack or kill another person because they've lost control of their emotions to be "insane" or "unstable."
Then we are all "insane" or "unstable". We are all capable of visiting violence on others in a blind rage. It's an essential part of the human condition and part of the reason why temporary insanity is actually a permissible defense in most modern legal systems.
Are you saying that it is not possible for someone to desensitize themselves and/or realize that words are just words?
But words are not "just" words. They have the power to heal and to harm. Words have raised up empires and toppled them. Words have enabled tyrants to stride the world and thrown them back down. As they say "the pen is mightier than the sword", and they say it because swords "merely" end lives, whereas pens write words. The essence is that words are more powerful than death. So, words are "just" words in the same way that the Sun is "just" a giant nuclear furnace. They are "just" words only if you choose to be ignorant of their fundamental nature.
Grieving parents, in particular, are at one of the most vulnerable moment in their lives. It would require extraordinary self-control to deal rationally with someone who chose that particular time to attack them and the child they are grieving. It's all well and good to say they should control their reactions, but it's probably not going to happen. It is irrational to expect it to happen, and it begs the question why the attacker shouldn't control his actions or be forced into controlling his actions if he is unable to do so. Why should the world accommodate the reprehensible and reckless behavior of an evil man and instead put the burden of enduring his evil on good people who have done nothing to deserve his assaults?
Like me? Where did I indicate that I am such a person?
Frankly, it's all over your posts. You have little empathy for others, you seem to consider people who are grieving to be "insane" and "unstable". You seem to think harassment and defamation are perfectly reasonable behavior. You under react to antisocial behavior but over react to physical violence.
Would you tell the victim of a beating that he should grow thicker skin?
If there was a magical way to ward of physical pain and damage, yes.
Know what? Telling grieving families to "not be so sensitive" doesn't magically work either.
It also allows for easy translation into the doctor's native language, though I suppose that's not a feature most Americans would care about much.
In person that could get you killed, rightly or wrongly.
I'm glad that we have the internet, then. That way you don't have to deal with people that I deem as "insane" and "unstable."
"Unstable"? Definitely. Of course, the guy in question sought out the parents of dead children because he knew they would usually be at least temporarily unstable. He sought them out for the express purpose to seeing how much harm he could inflict with his words. And he did it more than once, to people he had no reason to interact with other than to, deliberately and with foreknowledge, cause distress.
I find it interesting how some people, like you seem to dread physical violence and yet take so much delight in emotionally torturing your victims as if emotional pain and violence aren't intrinsically linked together. Would you tell the victim of a beating that he should grow thicker skin?
I think a serial offender who seeks out funerals and memorials to shout obscenities about the departed at the grieving families deserves to be dealt with.
It's not a case of (allegedly) hurting people's feelings, it's seeking out people who are emotionally vulnerable so you can get your jollies by re-victimizing them. It actually is evil. A petty, miserable sort of evil, but evil none the less.
When you get down to it, removing paint from stone isn't very hard to do either. It doesn't seem to me that you "care more about property in the real world" but rather that you only care about property in the real world. That's okay, but you should be honest about it. It may be harder to clean a gravestone, but that doesn't mean there isn't effort involved in deleting someone's offensive messages and banning them posting further. Additionally the punishment for defacing a gravestone is likely to go beyond merely the cost of cleaning it up.
What qualifies as defacing a gravestone? Writing a comment that the gravestone owner doesn't like?
I don't know that I agree with the crime that the guy plead guilty to, but it may be that it allowed him to avoid a harsher punishment or harassment or stalking laws, because it takes someone pretty screwed up to taunt grieving parents. In person that could get you killed, rightly or wrongly.
Many people don't know that "polite" was how you acted in the city ("polis"). You acted polite because offending people was likely to end up with somebody's (probably your) corpse rotting in the gutter.
He vandalized her memorial page. I don't see why vandalizing her memorial page should have no consequences, yet vandalizing a grave stone should have consequences. There seems to be an inconsistency here.
If she claims it was rape, then does she not believe her own claim? How can she not believe it was rape and yet honestly claim it was?
Because of a typo, that may have been unclear. She does not claim that she was raped or that Ms. Magee is a rapist in the blog post. In person, she definitely accused Ms. Magee.
Because it wasn't "for the simple reason". If that was "the simple reason", then EVERYONE who was boarding a plane would get the same treatment. There was another reason, obviously. Whether that reason was sufficient to justify the search doesn't change the fact there was a reason.
According the blog post, everyone else who boarded the plane was given similar treatment and no reason was ever offered to Ms. Aklon for why she or any of the other passengers was violated in such a manner. Frankly, I find it hard to imagine any reason that could justify this behavior on the TSA's part. There was definitely a reason, but I suspect the reason is specious and if the real reason were disclosed someone would end up in prison or lynched.
Again, you try to drag the conversation back to a topic no one but you wants to talk about. Do you not understand how tiresome and pedantic your behavior is?
I tried discussing why most people are all to willing to believe the worst of the TSA and all you can do is stupidly repeat that we don't know the details of this incident. It seems to me that practically everyone except you knows and understand this. But you for some reason are stuck on the notion that this is a new and novel insight rather than so blindingly obvious it doesn't even bear mentioning in regular conversation.
You know, you could have just said that from the start, and saved me the bother of trying to reason with you.
You haven't tried to reason with me. You keep trying to change to subject and focus on the details of the allegation that we do not know. You're offering very tenuous arguments that maybe it wasn't exactly technically rape. Which might be understandable if anyone were actually arguing that it was. Frankly, I find your statements to be boorish and simpleminded. You don't seem to understand that people aren't really talking about this incident, this alleged incident has just brought the issue of TSA abuses up yet again.
You seem unable or unwilling to follow any line of conversation that goes beyond writing about how much nobody knows about the incident you freely admit you know nothing about. Why are you even bothering to post?
You may be right, but why should we care? There is documented video of the TSA performing pat downs on toddlers and wheelchair bound grandmothers. Presumption of innocence is for the courts, not the public. You know the saying "Fool me once shame on you, Fool me twice shame on me"? The TSA has earned a reputation for thuggery and violations of fundamental rights and as such has forfeited the right to the benefit of the doubt in the minds of the public.
Additionally, as a syndicated columnist who has a reputation to protect, Ms. Aklon is probably also awarded slightly more credibility than a random blogger would get. Given that she does have a reputation to protect, it seems unlikely that she would pick a fight with the TSA over an incident she invented. Not inconceivable, but given the past history of the TSA and the nature of the complainant, the allegations seem plausible.
Frankly, I think it's the agency that's getting the worst of it, the woman herself is almost incidental to the story. She is named, as far as I can tell, to shame her for her participation in tyranny.
Ms. Alkon's attorney advised her it would be a non-starter - but they don't explain why they advised her of that.
You should actually read the blog post. The lawyer's explanation is right there:
Actually, Ms. Aklon has not claimed anything of the sort, which you would know if you had read the blog post in question (it is linked from the article). She specifically says that she screamed "You raped me" at the woman and then talks about the legal advice that said she would be unlikely to prevail in a sexual assault case and would have a better case based on fourth or fifth amendment grounds.
She hasn't filed rape charges because she doesn't believe she was raped, and does claim that it was rape. She hasn't filed sexual assault charges because she has been advised that the case would be unlikely to win. As for a lawsuit on fourth and/or fifth amendment grounds? You'd have to ask her that, but I would hazard a guess that it's expensive as a syndicated columnist her strength is writing about her experiences rather than winning lawsuits.
Again, she never called Ms. Magee a rapist, she is accused of having committed a "government sanctioned sexual assault".
Finally, the blog post isn't even really about Ms. Magee, her name is included as an after thought. It's about unreasonable it is to require that a government employee actually violate your body for the simple reason that you are boarding a plane. According to Ms. Aklon, as far as she could tell everyone boarding the same flight as her received similar treatment. That's a lot civil liberty violations. The post is mostly about how Americans should refuse to accept this barbarous treatment.
Honestly, is "the hands of the state have no business in the vaginas of the people" really such a foreign concept to you people now?
Honestly, are you really this blind? The TSA agent gets a less than kind treatment for for physically assaulting a woman and then having the temerity to sue her for complaining about the assault. The central issue appears to be that the agent doesn't want to be identified by name. It doesn't sound like there is a disagreement over what occurred but merely a disagreement over whether the victim has the right to name the woman who assaulted her.
And yes, it's still assault to forcibly shove your fingers into someone else's body, even if you're an agent of the government.
Russians starved under Stalin because of Lysenkoism. Essentially Russians were taken in by pseudo-science masquerading as science, and paid the price when they tried to grow crops using pseudo-scientific theories.
There are many Republican presidential candidates who worry me for the same reason. How much damage will be done by a President who thinks praying will convince God to intercede and fix the Nation's problems. How much damage could be done by a President who pretends his state is experience a huge economic miracle, when in many ways it's last. The Republicans seem to have rejected reality, and are now content to live in a land of make believe. As amply demonstrated by Stalin, that's not a good quality in your leaders, elected or otherwise.
Actually, I'm pretty sure that's wrong.
I'm not sure how much I trust evolutionary sociology and psychology, but as I understand the fields, we (humans and our ancestors) have prospered through reciprocal altruism, not unrestricted self-interest.
This makes sense since unrestricted altruism would be vulnerable to the self-interested and unrestricted self-interest would destroy any society we tried to form*.
* Because it's almost aways better to betray the altruistic in the short-term, and we are not usually very good long term planners.
The benefit of travel like this is confronting "Otherness." The Other forces you to examine your assumptions, to question your beliefs, to stretch your perspective, to widen your horizons, and to entertain alternatives -- all skills worth a million dollars in today's world. You won't get very much of this at college. But go to India, or the Congo, or Albania, and its Otherness will teach you.
If only that were true in every case. You have to be willing to learn from "Otherness" in order to benefit from it. I think there are generally three different reactions to otherness, whole-hearted embracing, tentative acceptance, and outright rejection. Both the first and the last option can be worse than no exposure. For instance, the embracers may not not fully consider the consequences of embracing what they discover. The rejectors on the other hand may come to hate the very people they were supposed to learn from. They may return convinced that they are inherently superior to the "others", whether that be intellectually, morally, or otherwise. Fortunately, most people tend to take the middle road.
My point is that while it's quite probably a good idea, it is also probably not a panacea. I suspect many people would have their prejudices reinforced and amplified by the experience.
While there is the possibility that you had the misfortune to have a lot (20-30?) bad teachers during your teenage years, there is also a significantly higher probability that you were (and potentially still are) the problem.
As a result, we have lifelong infants lecturing their parents on environmentalism and gay sensitivity.
This line confirms, at least to me, that your subjective opinions are not trustworthy.